Nitrox workshop dings - Divers Alert Network

Rubicon Foundation Archive (http://rubicon-foundation.org)///. Nitrox Risk Management DiscussionM. Lang: Of the four exemptions from the commercial diving standards this variance onlyapplies to the first one, which reads: "However, this standard does not apply to any divingoperation performed solely for instructional purposes, using open-circuit, compressed airscuba and conducted within the no-decompression limits." The variance was filed to modifythe exemption for the recreational diving community to include a) nitrox, and b) rebreathers.K. Shreeves: We did try to wrap in language that was implied in the original exemption thatOSHA has accepted a philosophy on. A Divemaster leading an underwater tour forrecreational divers is not specifically listed under the exemption as it was written in the 70's.OSHA has always recognized part of the intent as that Divemaster working in the samesafety envelope; he's providing education and information about the environment. We triedto put some language in the variance that was a little more specific to cover that activity aswell.B. Turbeville: That brings us to the point of administrative and prosecutorial discretion, which isthat while there may be a strict reading of the rule, the variance may not allow supervision ofrecreational divers. The fact is OSHA doesn't want to get involved in that much of a knitpicking of a variance because it causes too much work for them. They're rather understaffedand overworked as it is right now. The bottom line is if we don't make this an issue for them,they're not going to follow up on it.K. Shreeves: That is the best form of risk protection we can have on a legal basis, goodeducation and good diving practices. If you don't have accidents, you don't have problems.M. Lang: There were qualifiers in the variance, such as the CO2 analyzers. Do you want tocover some of those for discussion?K. Shreeves: There were several on the rebreather side. Since I was working primarily on theopen-circuit side, I don't have all that information. It is published in the variance. Most of itdid stay unfortunately for those who produce closed-circuit equipment. The bullets for nitroxwere: PO2 of 1.4 atm, 130 feet maximum depth, dives within the no-stop limits, a maximum40 percent mix, a stand-by diver and within one hour of a chamber.B. Turbeville: The 1.4 atm came as a result of a compromise because at first OSHA wanted 1.3atm. Where did OSHA find the 1.3 atm? From the U.S. Navy. Earlier there was adiscussion of standards of care and community practice. Ed Thalmann indicated that this iswhat the Navy wants to do and it was just for Navy divers. Well, it's not that simple. Theproblem is, as a trial lawyer, I will be faced with expert witnesses saying, you think thestandard of care is 1.6 atm, but guess what? Here is the U.S. Navy Diving Manual and byGod, that's the bible for divers. This says 1.3 atm. Now we have OSHA saying it's 1.4 atm.It's very important that if you're going to make a statement, or publish a standard based uponwhat you assume to be accurate data, that you make it very specific to the community towhich it's directed. Otherwise, it will affect every other community out there at least on thelegal end if there's a lawsuit. The way these standards are created within a courtroom isbased upon which expert witness the jury believes is the most honest and the mostexperienced. We have a certain tool now that the Supreme Court has given us to keep outreally ridiculous opinions, which is called a challenge. However, it doesn't weed all thisnonsense out. The fact is we're going to see cases, not on the specific 1.3 versus 1.6 atmstandard, but similar types of issues. If the Navy or NOAA wants to set up a particularstandard of care for itself and it's much stricter than the community as a whole thinks isnecessary, suddenly we have to defend in a microcosm in a courtroom that less strict standard107